On 02/05/07, Jonathan Stokes jonathanwstokes@gmail.com wrote:
For instance, a short paragraph at the top of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interwiki_map could do the trick. In fact, a simple paragraph of explanation is currently curiously absent from the InterWiki Map.
The talk page has some criteria:
I'll take a shot in the dark here: INTERWIKI MAP CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION:
I'll rearrange those into the order I'd like things to go in. Note the push for magic nofollow powers for free content.
"The InterWiki Map exists to allow a more efficient syntax for linking between wikis, and thus promote the cooperation and proliferation of wikis providing free information on the internet. Sites considered for inclusion should probably (1) provide clear and relevant usefulness to the Wikimedia projects (2) be trusted not to facilitate spam links (3) be free content (under a Commons-acceptable license) (4) be a wiki (5) be reasonably developed."
The process for determining inclusion is similar to [[AfD.]] Members of the community may present pro's and con's, with a Meta administrator determining consensus and acting accordingly.
I'd say just make it "should be submitted on the talk page and will be decided on by a Meta admin." Note that it's much harder to become a Meta admin than an en:wp admin, and they have a term of a year.
I'd word your other para:
"Sites included in the InterWiki Map are considered by the Wikimedia community to be trusted not to encourage spam links being added to Wikimedia projects, and thus "nofollow" is removed from InterWiki links."
A short paragraph like the above could be sufficient to assuage the concerns of those who suspect Wikipedia/Wikia nepotism. This sort of fix may be all that is necessary to quell concerns of a Nefarious Wikia Conspiracy!
Sounds good to me.
This is, of course, not an en:wp matter at all. Foundation-l and meta are the places (and it'd need to be both) to discuss this.
- d.